Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
Erschienen in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 1/2013

01.02.2013

Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools—describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries

verfasst von: M. C. M. Ehren, H. Altrichter, G. McNamara, J. O’Hara

Erschienen in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

School inspection is used by most European education systems as a major instrument for controlling and promoting the quality of schools. Surprisingly, there is little research knowledge about how school inspections drive the improvement of schools and which types of approaches are most effective and cause the least unintended consequences. The study presented in this paper uses interviews with inspection officials and a document analysis to reconstruct the “program theories” (i.e. the assumptions on causal mechanisms, linking school inspections to their intended outcomes of improved teaching and learning) of Inspectorates of Education in six European countries. The results section of the paper starts with a summary of the commonalities and differences of these six national inspection models with respect to standards and thresholds used, to types of feedback and reporting, and to the sanctions, rewards and interventions applied to motivate schools to improve. Next, the intermediate processes through which these inspection models are expected to promote good education (e.g. through actions of stakeholders) are explained. In the concluding section, these assumptions are critically discussed in the light of research knowledge.
Vorheriger Artikel Editorial
Nächster Artikel Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Austria is represented in this study by the regional education authority of the province of Styria which uses some room for maneuver in the Austrian centralist education legislation for developing a specific type of “team inspection”.
 
2
Data collection was carried out by a team of researchers, including (in addition to the authors of this paper) Peter Tymms, Karen Jones, Jan-Eric Gustafsson, Eva Myrberg, Gerry Conyngham, David Kemethofer and David Greger.
 
Literatur
Altrichter, H. (2010). Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung durch Datenrückmeldung. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. S. 219–S. 254). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRef
Altrichter, H., & Maag Merki, K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. S. 219–S. 254). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Altrichter, H., & Rürup, M. (2010). Schulautonomie und die Folgen. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulwesen (pp. 111–144). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRef
Arnold, K.-H. (2007). Bildungspolitische, diagnostische und didaktische Bedingungen und Wirkungen von Schulleistungsevaluationen. Empirische Pädagogik, 21, 448–457.
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. N. (2009). Market reforms in education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, D. N. Plank, & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 513–527). New York: Routledge.
Bonsen, M., & Gathen, J. (2004). Schulentwicklung und Testdaten. In H. G. Holtappels, K. Klemm, H. Pfeiffer, H.-G. Rolff, & R. Schulz-Zander (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung. Band 13 (pp. S. 225–S. 252). Weinheim: Juventa.
Brimblecombe, N., Shaw, M., & Ormston, M. (1996). Teachers’ intention to change practice as a result of OFSTED school inspections. Educational Management & Administration, 24(4), 339–354.CrossRef
Brunsden, V., Davies, M., & Shevlin, M. (2006). Anxiety and stress in educational professionals in relation to Ofsted. Education Today, 56(1), 24–31.
Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2003). Making the grade: comparing DC charter schools to other DC public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 203–216.CrossRef
Chapman, C. (2001). Changing classrooms through inspections. School Leadership Management, 1(1), 59–73.CrossRef
Coe, R. (2002). Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback (pp. S. 3–S. 26). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing student’s perspectives: towards trust. Dialogue and Change in Education Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.CrossRef
De Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: an overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379–396.CrossRef
Dillon, S. (2011). The way I see it is…Whole-school evaluation in Irish post-primary schools from the perspectives of principals, teachers, parents and students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. [Online] www.​dcu.​ie/​doras.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 147–160.CrossRef
Doolaard, S., & Karstanje, P. (2001). Gebruik van publieke prestatie-indicatoren voor schoolverbetering. In A. B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra, & A. J. Visscher (Eds.), Het oog der natie: scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (pp. 155–173). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
Dronkers, J., & Veenstra, R. (2001). Schoolprestatie-indicatoren in het voortgezet onderwijs: start, reacties en vervolg. In A. B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra, & A. J. Visscher (Eds.), Het oog der natie: scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (pp. 21–36). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
Dubs, R. (2006). Bildungsstandards: Das Problem der schulpraktischen Umsetzung. Netzwerk–Die Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsbildung, 1, 18–29.
Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2006). Towards a theory on the impact of school inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51–72.CrossRef
Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationship between school inspections, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227.CrossRef
Ehren, M. C. M., Leeuw, F. L., & Scheerens, J. (2005). On the impact of the Dutch educational supervision act; Analyzing assumptions concerning the inspection of primary education. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 60–76.CrossRef
Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (2001). Research finds the false assumption of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(4), 9–14.
Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe: policies and measures. Brussels: Eurydice.
Faubert, V. (2009). School evaluation: current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 42, OECD Publishing. doi:10.​1787/​218816547156.
Gärtner, H., Füsemann, D., & Pant, H. A. (2009). Wirkungen von Schulinspektion aus Sicht betroffener Schulleitungen. Empirische Pädagogik, 23, 1–18.
Geijsel, F., Berg, van den, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). The innovative capacity of schools in primary education: a qualitative study. Qualitative studies in education, 12(2), 175–191.
Geijsel, P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Kruger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 1–22.CrossRef
Grabensberger, E., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Specht, W. (2008). Bildungsstandards: Testungen und Ergebnisrückmeldungen auf der achten Schulstufe aus der Sicht der Praxis. Graz: Bifie.
Groß Ophoff, J., Koch, U., Helmke, A., & Hosenfeld, I. (2006). Vergleichsarbeiten für die Grundschule–und was diese daraus machen (können). Journal für Schulentwicklung, 10(4), 7–12.
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2002). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. Paper prepared for ‘Taking Account of Accountability: Assessing Policy and Politics’, Harvard University.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. Milton Park: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRef
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington: National Academy Press.
Hosenfeld, I., Groß Ophoff, J., & Koch, U. (2007). Vergleichsarbeiten in Klassenstufe 3 (VERA 3). Präsentation bei der 7. Tagung “Empiriegestützte Schulentwicklung” in Mainz. Landau: Universität Koblenz-Landau.
House, E., & Howe, K. (2000). Deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions in Evaluation, 85, 3–26.CrossRef
Hoxby, C. (Ed.). (2003). The economics of school choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hughes, G., Mears, R., & Winch, C. (1997). An inspector calls? Regulation and accountability in three public services. Policy and Politics, 25(3), 299–314.CrossRef
Husfeldt, V. (2011). Wirkungen und Wirksamkeit der exzernen Schulevaluation. Überblick zum Stand der Forschung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft. doi:10.​1007/​s11618-011-0204-5.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.CrossRef
Karsten, S., & Visscher, A. J. (2001). Ervaringen met het openbaar maken van schoolprestaties in Engeland en Frankrijk. In A. B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra, & A. J. Visscher (Eds.), Het oog der natie: scholen op rapport (pp. 36–53). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hopping for B. The Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783.CrossRef
Klerks, M. (submitted). The effect of school inspections: a systematic review. Oxford Review.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRef
Kogan, M., & Maden, M. (1999). An evaluation of evaluators: the OFSTED system of school inspection. In C. Cullingford (Ed.), An inspector calls; Ofsted and its effect on school standards (pp. 9–32). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Koretz, D. M. (2003). Using multiple measures to address perverse incentives and score inflation. Educational Measurement, 22(2), 18–26.CrossRef
Kotthoff, H. G., & Böttcher, W. (2010). Neue Formen der „Schulinspektion“: Wirkungshoffnungen und Wirksamkeit im Spiegel empirischer Bildungsforschung. In H. Altrichter, K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung in Schulsystem (pp. 295–325). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Kuper, H. (2005). Evaluation im Bildungssystem. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Leeuw, F. L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 5–20.
Leutner, D., Fleischer, J., Spoden, C., & Wirth, J. (2007). Schulrückmeldungen in landesweiten Lernstandserhebungen. Präsentation bei der 7. Tagung “Empiriegestützte Schulentwicklung” in Mainz. Landau: Universität Koblenz-Landau.
Luginbuhl, R., Webbink, D., & De Wolf, I. (2009). Do inspections improve primary school performance? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 221–237.
Maier, U. (2006). Können Vergleichsarbeiten einen Beitrag zur Schulentwicklung leisten? Journal für Schulentwicklung, 10(4), 20–28.
Maier, U. (2007). Lehrereinschätzungen zu zentralen Tests und Leistungsrückmeldungen. Präsentation auf der 7. Tagung “Empiriegestützte Schulentwicklung” in Mainz. Landau: Universität Koblenz-Landau.
Malen, B. (1999). On rewards, punishments, and possibilities: teacher compensation as an instrument for education reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(4), 387–394.CrossRef
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions; theory, cases and techniques. New York: Wiley.
Matthews, P., & Sammons, P. (2004). Improvement through Inspection. London: Ofsted.
McGarvey, N., & Stoker, G. (1999). Intervention, inspection, regulation and accountability in local government. DETR—Interim literature review. London: DETR.
McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2008). The importance of the concept of self-evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 173–179.CrossRef
McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2009). Where global meets local: contexts, constraints and consensus in school evaluation in Ireland. Sage international handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 273–291). London: Sage Publications.CrossRef
Nevo, D. (2006). In S. J. Greene & M. Mark (Eds.), Evaluation in education. Sage handbook of evaluation I (pp. 441–460). London: Sage Publications.
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), Retrieved 14 November 2008 from http://​epaa.​asu.​edu/​epaa/​v14n1.
Ofsted (2009). Parents’ perceptions of Ofsted’s work—a report of the NFER for Ofsted. London: Ofsted.
Peek, R. (2004). Qualitätsuntersuchung an Schulen zum Unterricht in Mathematik (QuaSUM). Empirische Pädagogik, 18, 82–114.
Peek, R. (2006). Dateninduzierte Schulentwicklung. In H. Buchen & H.-G. Rolff (Eds.), Professionswissen Schulleitung (pp. 1343–1366). Weinheim: Beltz.
Reback, R. (2005). Supply and demand in a public school choice program. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 143–151.CrossRef
Scheerens, J., Seidel, T., Witziers, B., Hendriks, M., & Doornekamp, G. (2005). Positioning and validating the supervision framework. Positioning the supervision frameworks for primary and secondary education of the Dutch Educational Inspectorate in current educational discourse and validating core indicators against the knowledge base of educational effectiveness research. Enschede/Kiel: University of Twente/IPN
Schildkamp, K., Visscher, A., & Luyten, H. (2009). The effects of the use of a school self-evaluation instrument. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 69–88.CrossRef
Schwippert, K. (2004). Leistungsrückmeldungen an Grundschulen im Rahmen der internationalen Grundschul-Lese-Untersuchung (IGLU). Empirische Pädagogik, 18, 62–81.
Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practices. Tests and their use in test-based accountability systems. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M., Stecher, S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of Test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica: Rand cooperation. http://​www.​rand.​org/​pubs/​monograph_​reports/​MR1554/​.
Steffens, U. (2009). Lernstandserhebungen in den deutschen Ländern–Probleme und Perspektiven. Unv. Ms. Wiesbaden: Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.
van Ackeren, I. (2003). Evaluation, Rückmeldung und Schulentwicklung. Münster: Waxmann.
van de Grift, W. (2007). Quality of teaching in four European countries: a review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educational Research, 49(2), 127–152.CrossRef
Visscher, A. J., & Coe, R. (2002). School improvement through performance feedback (27–39). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Visscher, A. J., & Coe, R. (2003). School performance feedback systems: conceptualisation, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 321–349.CrossRef
Whitby, K. (2010). School inspection: recent experiences in high performing education systems; literature review. Reading: CfBT Education Trust.
Wood, E. (2003). The power of pupil perspectives in evidence-based practice: the case of gender and underachievement. Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 365–383.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools—describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries
verfasst von
M. C. M. Ehren
H. Altrichter
G. McNamara
J. O’Hara
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1874-8597
Elektronische ISSN: 1874-8600
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9156-4